Nx4eu J-XDS (J-50) Model
- Thread starter Nx4eu
- Start date
It's not completely done, I've been side tracked with other stuff. But it's mostly complete.
Measurements:
Length: 20.2m
Wingspan: 17.4m
Volume: 76 ± 1 m^3
Following VTOLicious 580 theory, MTOW should be ~44,000 kg
Measurements:
Length: 20.2m
Wingspan: 17.4m
Volume: 76 ± 1 m^3
Following VTOLicious 580 theory, MTOW should be ~44,000 kg
Last edited:
There is an attempt to recreate what Reddington did with his F-47 Model. But it's not completely there yet.
Also here's a for fun model with J-20 canards to make it look like F-47 Lol.
In terms of anything else, I'm not sure. I've decided not to make a J-36 model because I'm biased.. But maybe that can change.
Last edited:
Canards on a 6th gen? This blasphemy! This is madness!
Joking aside, i hope you'll at one point reconsider about J-36, apart from TOMCAT (who actually deleted his J-36 no. 2 work) and Mplifier, you are the only other artist i know with the interest and especially skill to pull off a stunning J-36 no. 2
Anyway, just a fanboy speaking. I'll enjoy whatever you'll be modelling.
Joking aside, i hope you'll at one point reconsider about J-36, apart from TOMCAT (who actually deleted his J-36 no. 2 work) and Mplifier, you are the only other artist i know with the interest and especially skill to pull off a stunning J-36 no. 2
Anyway, just a fanboy speaking. I'll enjoy whatever you'll be modelling.
Purely in terms of aesthetics, I think the canards make the aircraft look better and more balanced. Without it, the plane looks too rear heavy.Canards on a 6th gen? This blasphemy! This is madness!
It's relatively short, but very wide. This confused me a lot with the modeling at first. Compared to my J-20 and J-35 model, this Canopy is 2.1m long and 1.4m wide. While both the J-20 and J-35 have roughly 2.7m long canopies that are 1m wide. What was strange was the reference photos made the canopy look huge. It's also a very flat canopy, I'm just assuming the pilot is a lot more sunken into the fuselage.
Also I have still no idea what that tiny weapons bay looking door on the side is.
mokahete
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 18 April 2025
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 298
Rigging up some mechanisms..
View: https://twitter.com/Polar000077/status/2013447151146193265?s=20
View: https://twitter.com/Polar000077/status/2013447151146193265?s=20
Blasphemous as it is, with canards it looks gorgeous, they balance that awkwardly long beak almost perfectly.
The window for the nose landing gear is too long. See the clip from a video.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Might be a two piece nose gear door like the Su-57, where the forward section closes after the wheel is deployed. Otherwise, I don’t see how the gear would fit, I can make these changes later.
Mine is also slightly artistic, as what we see now is a prototype, and production aircraft will always have changes versus the prototype.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 24 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,858
- Reaction score
- 4,330
Great work!
I really need to check out Blender. I use Solid Works, which is a great CAD tool, but Blender may be better suited for this kind of stuff, especially when it comes to rendering and animation.
Btw, Reddington and I last used ~520 kg/m³ to estimate MTOW. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ion-of-the-boeing-f-47-ngad.45793/post-861592
76 m³ seems low to me for the given dimensions. Does that volume include the air intake ducts? I always use the total body volume, excluding cavities.
Last edited:
I have no idea how Blender calculates volume. Some of these bodies aren't even closed so I don't know how the volume is assumed. I might need to export the files into a proper software to get accurate numbers.
Here's also a different weapons bay concept, Uses up the centerline real estate, the AAM placeholders I have here are less smushed together.
View: https://twitter.com/Polar000077/status/2014102890122485979?s=20
View: https://twitter.com/Polar000077/status/2014102890122485979?s=20
Alfa_Particle
In Your Atmosphere
- Joined
- 15 April 2024
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 411
Thanks for that IMO this configuration is more faithful to the photos we've seen so far.
And honestly, given the thickness of the bays you might also be able to get away with hanging more missiles on the bay doors too. Now THAT would be a real missile truck, with ≥Flanker maneuverability.
My only regret is that the actual aircraft doesn't seem to be exploiting such IWB arrangement concepts to the full extent by making the middle bay longer and shove PL-17s in there. But whatever. They seem to have new fancy missiles in the pipeline that suit the job better anyways.
IMO this configuration is more faithful to the photos we've seen so far.And honestly, given the thickness of the bays you might also be able to get away with hanging more missiles on the bay doors too. Now THAT would be a real missile truck, with ≥Flanker maneuverability.
My only regret is that the actual aircraft doesn't seem to be exploiting such IWB arrangement concepts to the full extent by making the middle bay longer and shove PL-17s in there. But whatever. They seem to have new fancy missiles in the pipeline that suit the job better anyways.
Last edited by a moderator:
Getting back to this.
I got 86m^3 for total body volume excluding cavities. With the new 520kg/m^3 estimate -> 44700kg MTOW
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
R